United States v. Borrelli’s Empirical Analysis
621 F.2d 1092 · 1980
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 3 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably United States v. Espinosa (1985), United States v. Paiva (1989)
36 federal appellate · 3 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 11 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2
Relies on Simmons v. United States · Adams v. Williams · McCray v. State of Illinois · Addington v. Texas · Stone v. People
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“where the facts and circumstances known to the police are sufficient in themselves to warrant a prudent officer in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“broad discretion to determine whether a lay witness is qualified under Rule 701 to testify on a matter of opinion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because we find that, ... “there is some basis for concluding that the witness[es][are] more likely to correctly identify the defendant from the photograph than is the jury,” we hold that the district court acted within its discretion in admitting lay opinion identification testimony from [the lay witnesses] .... [B]ecause the surveillance photograph was admitted into evidence, the jury was certainly able to compare [the defendant’s] appearance at trial with the appearance of the individual depicted in the photograph. In view of the disguise worn by the robber pictured in the photograph and the level of familiarity with [the defendant’s] appearance both [lay witnesses] possessed ..., we conclude that the lay opinion identification testimony admitted was “helpful to the determination of a fact in issue” within the meaning of [F.R.E.] 701.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.